OPINION:
What’s going on in the Republican Party across the country isn’t a civil war as much as it’s a tale of two paradigms.
When you remove the names, personalities, egos, candidates and factions that are being discussed constantly, what this represents is a seismic shift in the political preferences of the Republican base as the GOP has squandered the power voters lavished upon it over the past decade.
Instead of taking their majorities in both houses of Congress and teaming with the presidency to stem the tide of pagan socialism incrementally implemented by the Democratic Party for generations, Republicans punted on nearly every cultural issue while simultaneously cashing the check at the taxpayers’ expense, creating a sense of betrayal that many Americans - including the party’s own grass-roots supporters - still haven’t gotten over.
This is why people aren’t buying into new top-down leadership, seeing it as a repackaged version of that in which they already have lost trust. Attempts to unify the party come across as clumsy or condescending, at best, without recognizing that both conservatives focused on economics and conservatives focused on social issues have seen their core beliefs trampled by leaders who claimed to be their champions.
Unification as it was defined in the previous era is impossible. Trust is gone. As is the case with the breakup of any long-term relationship, both sides try to exert pressure on each other to avoid the fear of what comes next before finally letting go.
To put it in Facebook vernacular, the relationship status of the old Reagan coalition in America could best be described by the phrase “it’s complicated.”
The old Reagan coalition was the last seismic shift in American politics, mainstreaming born-again Christians and their domestic concerns while rebuilding a tough containment policy in the Cold War. That renewed, confident America crushed the Soviet Union.
However, once that external threat was neutralized, those new activists in the Reagan coalition expected cultural threats from within to become a higher priority. Marxists on college campuses were every bit as dangerous as the ones in Moscow.
But ever since Pat Buchanan’s infamous “culture war” speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention, the divide between the party establishment and grass-roots social conservatives has grown. Conservatives put aside their concerns in the days following Sept. 11, 2001, once again giving ground on their priorities to face down an external threat. As social conservatives saw their issues drift into the background, economic conservatives found their core values under assault by their own administration.
Now that many Americans no longer sense a clear and present danger from Islamic radicalism as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq rage on and on with no end in sight, the cultural divide between traditional party-focused Republicans and issue-focused conservatives has returned with a vengeance.
This time, for the first time, both sides seem willing to see how life could be without the other.
The lines are being drawn, and everyone is going to be forced to choose which side he or she is on. Even some good people who have spent the past few years trying to bridge this divide are going to find themselves caught in the middle.
This is always what happens when paradigms clash within a movement. At first, those in favor of the new paradigm try being puritans, believing that those perpetuating the old paradigm are just misinformed and would see things the new way if the new-paradigm people established a rapport with them or shared the truth with them. After a while, though, it becomes obvious to those advocating a new paradigm that many in favor of the old one are financially vested in keeping failure alive, so the puritans eventually become separatists.
Here’s what divides the party-focused old guard and the issue-focused new-paradigm conservatives, whose most visible expression is the stridently independent Tea Party movement:
Party unity
Old paradigm: The threat that Democrats pose to the country’s future requires everyone to work together toward the common goal of defeating them.
New paradigm: If we’re not going to stand for anything in stark contrast to the Democrats, what’s the point?
Philosophy
Old paradigm: The person who is my 80 percent friend isn’t my 20 percent enemy.
New paradigm: Electing people who don’t share my core convictions is a loser - period.
Tactics
Old paradigm: In the real world, the Republican Party is the only weapon Americans have against the encroaching loss of liberty that occurs whenever Democrats win elections.
New paradigm: Because the Republican Party has demonstrated it won’t defend Americans from Democrats, Americans may have to form their own movements independent of the Republican Party in order to protect their liberty.
Ideology
Old paradigm: It’s about the party platform.
New paradigm: It’s about the Constitution.
Relationship
Old paradigm: Conservatives must take over the Republican Party from within and build it up over the long haul.
New paradigm: Instead of wasting our time with a party that doesn’t want us, we’ll just help specific candidates we like in spite of the party.
Social issues
Old paradigm: We need to chip away incrementally at what’s happened to our culture.
New paradigm: We want to defeat evil, not regulate it.
Taxes
Old paradigm: Across-the-board tax cuts, tax credits and subsidies to corporate America stimulate economic development.
New paradigm: Get the government out of the business of choosing winners and losers and pass either the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax.
Judicial activism
Old paradigm: Legal positivism with “conservative” judges appointed by Republicans.
New paradigm: We need to limit the jurisdiction of the courts as our Founders intended and instead appoint judges who understand that any law that conflicts with God’s Law is no law.
Leadership
Old paradigm: Chiefs are anointed to speak for their tribes and then given a seat at the table of power to represent their specific constituency while also making their constituents’ decisions for them.
New paradigm: I think for myself and trust neither the party nor the “leaders” it selects to think for me.
Mouthpiece
Old paradigm: Rush Limbaugh.
New paradigm: Glenn Beck.
Heroes
Old paradigm: William F. Buckley Jr. and Milton Friedman.
New paradigm: Founding Fathers.
Elections
Old paradigm: It’s all about winning in November.
New paradigm: If the right type of candidate doesn’t win the primary, November is irrelevant.
Morality
Old paradigm: traditional values.
New paradigm: biblical worldview.
Eventually, this new paradigm is going to replace the old one - it’s just a matter of time. Some of our closest allies and confidants will be among the last to make this transition because of old-paradigm inertia. But they will eventually come to the realization that what’s past is prologue, too. They’re going to need grace and patience from us, and the credibility they’ve earned fighting for righteousness under the old paradigm over the years grants them that.
Others will continue deceitfully to try to sell us on the old paradigm, but they had better cash the check now while they still can - because they’re just whistling past the graveyard. You can’t stop a force of nature.
In the meantime, the only unsolved mysteries are how long it will take for this new paradigm to take over, how many relationships will be damaged or lost in the process and whether it will be too late to save this republic by the time this new paradigm becomes the paradigm.
Steve Deace hosts the afternoon drive program on 1040 WHO-AM in Des Moines, Iowa, where Ronald Reagan was the station’s first sports director.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.